Wedding cake for gay couple

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Ah! But that was not a complaint, just a challenge to being told I was too political too often or expressing things the wrong way! It did feel rather censorial but maybe I was just being over sensitive.
Hopefully I will be better soon and back at work so not being so annoying on here!

No indeed, nothing to do with Pogs
It was your post at 17.10.53 complaining about perceived
Censorship from Jalima and me.

OK .. I am not sure what was meant then. Glad I have not upset you!

PECS

" If you are referring to my reply to POGS it was not a complaint.. just a question. If POGS was upset I regret that as it is not my intent to upset, merely to debate or comment."

Nope I wasn't upset as I don't think lemongrove had me in mind, at least I never read it that way.

lemongrove Perhaps your understanding of complaining is different to mine?

If you are referring to my reply to POGS it was not a complaint.. just a question. If POGS was upset I regret that as it is not my intent to upset, merely to debate or comment.

I totally accept that people will disagree with my point of view over all sorts of things. I am quite used to being in a minority. I support the right of each of us to put forward our ideas and opinions as long as we all keep within the law, are courteous and do not resort to personal insults.

I do not believe that clarity has been formed in this Supreme Court judgement with the exception of this one case.

What has been ruled on would be that it is illegal to demand a person carries out a duty that may be against that person personal belief.

The above has major implications for employment and the workplace that many believe will have to tested further through the courts in regard to the above implications when set alongside current employment legislation.

As I stated earlier in this thread, the judgment was correct for the baker's. However, in other areas the ruling "opens a can of worm" that can only become a lawyers gold field for which we may all finish up paying for.

You can almost hear the phone calls starting now.

Jalima.......I think we can guess!

If a Muslim Bakery was asked to produce a cake with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed I would not hesitate to say that Bakery was perfectly in order to refuse the business.
If we are talking hypothetically then what would have happened if it had been Muslim Bakers who had been asked to produce a cake with this same message campaigning for gay marriage?
Does anyone know the stance of Islam on gay marriage?

At least we know now the judgement has been made clear

Wouldn't the employment contract deal with that, grandad?

PECS I remember you before you came back as PECS
You complained then all the time.

The law has spoken in this case, with the right results IMHO. I think the gay activist set out to make a huge fuss and he has.The baker has been vindicated.

Should an English baker have the right to refuse icing a cake
‘Support the EDL’ ?

Which polarisation do you mean POGS? Some of us think it is right that the baker refusal to ice the message was upheld others of us don't. Good for freedom of speech & thought!

The Supreme Court ruling stated that it would be wrong to refuse to bake a cake for someone on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender, religious belief or any of the parameters laid out in the Equalities Act 2010. However, the ruling stated that it is legal to refuse to place a message on that item which would be against the beliefs of the person requested to place that message on the item.

However, If we then take the above ruling and place it in a purely hypothetical situation in a workplace. Let us say you have a person of Palestinian nationality who was told to drive a forklift which bore the logo of an Israeli manufacturer. That person may then refuse to operate that forklift on the grounds that it is against his/her belief to use anything that supports the maintenance of the Israeli state.

Should the employer then decide to carry out disciplinary action against the employee, that employer would now immediately come up against the above Supreme Court judgement.

As stated, the above is a purely hypothetical situation, but I believe it does bring forward many similar scenarios that could develop in the workplace and in other sectors of life.

I really dislike the polarization of this issue.

Discrimination against the person is illegal but I thought we still have a right to freedom of speech and thought and the right to disagree with other peoples views and opinion. Mind you I worry that along with ' Innocent until proven Guikty' we have lost the plot.

If the Bakery had refused to serve Gareth Lee because he was gay then I would have to fall behind a very long line to say that is completely wrong.

The Bakery is a business and it should have the right not to produce a product if it does not want to. If a Muslim Bakery was asked to produce a cake with a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed I would not hesitate to say that Bakery was perfectly in order to refuse the business.

Yes against the 6th commandment, is breaking the 2nd and 3rd wicked ?

Wicked = sinful= against God's laws

The issue that the Supreme Court ruling brings forward in most prominence is not the religious implications but the overall ramifications the judgment brings to the Equalities Act. That Act has done a huge amount in the field of Women's rights since its introduction in two thousand and ten and any weakening of the act could be very detrimental to the progress of women's equality.

The above it is felt does have its most significant implications for employers in any number of sectors and within that women's equality in the workplace which still lags well behind the progress made in other areas of society.

The above I feel are the issues that should be concentrated on as this ruling is digested in boardrooms and Human Resources departments throughout the UK in the coming weeks. The ruling is the correct one for the bakers, but whether it will prove detrimental for the majority in their lives is yet to be seen

Paul was a bit of a misogynist
An understatement! Probably forming the church's opinions on women for centuries too.

I didn’t say it was wicked

There may be circumstances when "adultery " is not wicked.

PECS, adultery is legal, should I accept it and support it ?

Baggs that would have to be a pretty big cake! ???

But the teachings of the Bible is not a legal requirement! And as you know Annie we could trade Biblical quotes to disprove or challenge! I do think Christians should put more emphasis on NT rather than OT..though pen man Paul was a bit of a misogynist and a reactionary..think he puts his own spin in a lot of his letters!

So these Christians are ‘rather nasty’ people for not allegedly following teachings in the bible because they are following teachings in the bible ?